Benton RSS Feed
The House approved controversial cybersecurity legislation that the Obama Administration has threatened to veto. Members approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), HR 3523, in a 248-168 vote that split both parties somewhat.
The bill was supported by 42 Democrats, while 28 Republicans opposed it. The House approved the bill after making a number of changes aimed at limiting the way the government could use the information that companies provide. CISPA would make it easier for companies to share information with the government about the threats facing their networks. Supporters — Republicans and Democrats alike — said the proposal is a reasonable compromise between the need for privacy and security. Republicans did allow several amendments to be considered that narrowed the scope of the bill, including proposals from members of both parties.
Here’s a look at approved amendments:
- Mike Pompeo (R-KS), to clarify the bill's liability provision that the use of cybersecurity systems is the use of these systems to obtain cyber threat information. Accepted voice vote.
- Mike Rogers (R-MI), to clarify that regulatory information already required to be provided remains subject to FOIA requests, as under current law. Passed 412-0.
- Ben Quayle (R-AZ), to limit the use of shared cyber threat information for cybersecurity, investigation of related crimes, protection of people from danger, protection of minors from child pornography, and protection of U.S. national security. Passed 410-3.
- Justin Amash (R-MI), to prohibit the federal government from using library records, firearms sales records, and tax returns from private entities under the bill. Passed 415-0.
- Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), to authorize the federal government to create reasonable procedures to protect privacy and civil liberties, consistent with the need for cybersecurity. Passed 416-0.
- Jeff Flake (R-AZ), to require the development of a list of all federal agencies receiving information about cyber threats. Accepted voice vote.
- Mike Pompeo (R-KS), to clarify that nothing in the bill would alter existing authorities or provide new authority to federal agencies to install or use cybersecurity systems on private sector networks. Accepted voice vote.
- Rob Woodall (R-GA), to add language stating that entities who choose not to participate in the voluntary information sharing authorized by the bill are not subject to new liabilities. Accepted voice vote.
- Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), narrowing the definitions on what information may be identified, obtained and shared. Passed 414-1.
- Michael Turner (R-OH), to make a technical correction to definitions in the bill. Accepted voice vote.
- Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), to sunset the provisions of the bill five years after enactment. Passed 413-3.
House approves cybersecurity bill over Obama veto threat Cybersecurity Bill Passed in U.S. House on 248-168 Vote (Bloomberg) House passes CISPA bill (Politico) Amendment results for cybersecurity bill (The Hill - amendments) Dem says Obama's veto threat for CISPA was like kick in the gut (The Hill – Ruppersberger) CISPA Passes House 248 to 168 (B&C) House unexpectedly votes on CISPA, which passes (GigaOm) House Votes to Approve Disputed Hacking Bill (NYTimes)
The House approved a second cybersecurity bill, the Federal Information Security Amendments Act (HR 4257).
The bill is aimed at updating the federal government's responsibility to manage its information systems so as to best thwart cyber threats. But according to Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), the current law on the books, the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), is not enough. The bill was approved by unanimous consent after being brought up under a suspension of House rules. Suspension bills are usually non-controversial, and must pass by a two-thirds majority vote.
House approves second cybersecurity bill
Verizon and AT&T reported their quarterly earnings in the last week, and they told nearly identical stories: Both are making a lot of money just from mobile data — the fees customers pay to reach the Internet over their networks. Some numbers shared by AT&T make it clear why.
Ralph de la Vega, chief executive of AT&T Mobility, said during Tuesday’s earnings call that about 60 percent of smartphone customers were paying for tiered data plans, and of those, 70 percent were choosing the higher-priced plans. For its tiered data plans, AT&T charges $20 for 300 megabytes of data, $30 for three gigabytes or $50 for five. (A gigabyte is 1,000 megabytes). Verizon’s data plans are similar: $30 for two GB, $50 for five GB or $80 for 10 GB. de la Vega’s statement suggests that the majority of people on AT&T’s tiered plans are paying at least $30 for three GB, or more. And it turns out that three GB is far more than most people use. A recent Cisco study showed that the average amount of data used per smartphone last year was 150 MB. And this year, Cisco predicts that 100 million smartphones will surpass just 1 GB of usage. An estimated 500 million smartphones shipped in 2011.
Why Mobile Data Is Such a Cash Cow for Carriers
While Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) couldn't be more pleased about the protests that derailed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in January, she sees serious problems with current efforts to protect intellectual property.
Rep Lofgren said critics who claim Google orchestrated the bill's demise to protect its business interests are getting it wrong. "It wasn't Google" who stopped the anti-piracy bill, she said. "It was the 14 million people who spoke up.” Putting SOPA aside, Rep Lofgren did say content creators have legitimate concerns about content theft that need to be addressed. "We need to be partners in a [next-generation] solution," she said.
Rep. Lofgren pleased by SOPA's demise, but still wants action on piracy
In 2010 Google announced plans to bring super-high-speed Internet access to select communities in America and in 2011 picked Kansas City to start. The search giant has said it hopes to spur innovation among cable companies and Internet service providers by demonstrating what’s possible with Internet speeds 100 times faster than the U.S. average. The project could also foreshadow dramatic changes for Hollywood, both because of the specter of piracy and Google’s possible experiments with new ways to distribute content legally.
Google Fiber spokeswoman Jenna Wandres stresses that Google Fiber isn’t meant to empower pirates: “We hope higher speeds will actually make it easier to deliver and download more authorized content,” she says. Nonetheless, Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, notes that piracy is always a concern of the entertainment industry. Google Fiber “could be a great opportunity for consumers whose access to creative content is often hampered by slow speeds,” he says. But in South Korea, “the home entertainment marketplace was decimated by digital piracy” enabled by the widespread availability of high-speed Internet.
Google Fiber in Kansas City Makes Hollywood Nervous
The Federal Trade Commission hired a top Washington litigator to run its antitrust investigation of Google, signaling the agency may be preparing a lawsuit against the world’s largest search engine. The FTC is bringing in Beth Wilkinson, a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, who is known for winning the death sentence against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and litigating for companies including Pfizer and Philip Morris International General counsel of Fannie Mae from 2006 to 2008, Wilkinson, 49, had never lost a case she tried through mid-2010, according to the National Law Journal.
FTC Hires Ex-Fannie Mae Counsel to Run Google Probe FTC taps outside counsel for Google antitrust probe (Reuters)
Google said the Justice Department closed an investigation last May into the company’s use of specially equipped autos that collected wireless data for its Street View project. Google’s disclosure about the inquiry was in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission April 26. The FCC proposed on April 13 fining the owner of the largest search engine for delaying the commission’s probe into improper data collection. The Justice Department concluded last year that “it would not pursue a case for violation of the Wiretap Act,” Google said today in the FCC filing. The company said it “acted in good faith at all times” and will pay the FCC’s $25,000 penalty “to put this investigation behind it.”
Google Street View Investigation by U.S. Declared Closed
Amazon's Kindle Fire now makes up the absolute majority of the Android tablet platform in the US, comScore found in a fresh study. The e-reader and tablet crossover represented 54.4 percent of all Android tablets sold in the country.
At second place, the entire Samsung Galaxy Tab lineup comprised just 15.4 percent of Android slates. No other manufacturer got above 10 percent, with Google's reference tablet, the Motorola Xoom, stopping at seven percent. Despite its size as a company, Sony only netted 0.7 percent for the Tablet S. The share was a virtual doubling of the Kindle Fire's stake from December and had seen every other manufacturer's share shrink as a result. Researchers didn't attempt to explain the shift, but the increasing bias suggested that the $199 price was again the determining factor and that devices trying to compete more directly in the iPad's price and category sold in low numbers.
Amazon Kindle Fire is 54.4% of US Android tablets
DirecTV has accused creditors of Tribune Company of taking control of certain local television stations without getting a green light from regulators, escalating the latest spat over TV-programming costs.
The satellite-TV company filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission asking it to intervene in the dispute, which is over the fees DirecTV pays to carry Tribune's 23 TV stations in 19 cities. The stations, which include affiliates of the CW and Fox networks, have been blacked out on DirecTV's service since the weekend. Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal, while CW is jointly owned by CBS and Time Warner.
DirecTV Complains To FCC on Tribune
[Commentary] Mayan prophecy predicts that the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012, but Internet users should be more worried about what will happen just a few weeks before. The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) meets in Dubai Dec. 3-14 to consider proposals that would grant authority for Internet governance to the United Nations and impose new regulations on Web traffic.
If adopted, these proposals could upend the Web as we know it, undermining it as an engine for growth and dynamism for the world. Since 1988, the Internet has been governed by private bodies. ICANN, which manages domain names under the rather benevolent oversight of the U.S., is fully devoted to multiple-stakeholder participation. Government representatives only sit on an "advisory committee," while business and civil society shape the rules. However, recent events (such as the controversial creation of a dedicated .xxx domain for adult content and Icann's plan to expand top-level domains) have created concerns among national governments—even those, such as the U.S. and the European Union, that remain fully committed to protecting the multiple-stakeholder model.
The UN, Internet Regulator?